The Utopian Reconstruction of 20th-Century Western Marxism

In the history of Western thought, utopia refers to a “good place that is nowhere,” possessing the dual dimensions of both the ideal and the fantastic. However, in the 20th century, some Western Marxists attempted to reinterpret this concept, with figures such as Ernst Bloch and Herbert Marcuse as representatives, forming a trend of utopian thought. They tried to equate utopia with socialism. This move is not only absurd—they “ignore the historical development of the proletariat” and “superstitiously believe in the miraculous effects of their own social science”—but also futile, as any attempt to revive utopia is merely a fanatical fantasy.

在西方思想史中，乌托邦指的是“美好的乌有之地”，兼具理想与幻想的双重维度。然而20世纪部分西方马克思主义者企图对这一概念进行重释，以布洛赫、马尔库塞等人为代表，形成了一股乌托邦的思潮。他们试图将乌托邦与社会主义等同，这种举动不仅是荒谬的，他们“无视无产阶级的历史发展”，“迷信自己那一套社会科学的奇功异效”；而且是徒劳的，任何复兴乌托邦的主张都只是一种狂热的幻想。

The Background of the Utopian Reconstruction

乌托邦重构的背景

In the early 20th century, within Western intellectual circles, a group of liberal theorists set off a wave of anti-utopianism. In their view, the historical actions known as “utopian movements” did not bring people the happiness they promised, but instead caused some of the heaviest disasters in human history. Because they equated utopia with socialism, they not only made the arrival of utopia suspect, but also eroded the legitimacy of socialism. As a form of rebuttal, a group of Western Marxists did not clarify the boundary between socialism and utopia, but instead attempted to grant legitimacy to the concept of utopia, putting the cart before the horse and beginning their self-righteous “socialist redemption.”

20世纪初，在西方思想界，一批自由主义的理论家掀起了反乌托邦的浪潮。在他们看来，名为“乌托邦运动”的历史行动，没有带给人们它所允诺的幸福，反而造成了人类历史上最沉重的几起灾难。由于他们将乌托邦与社会主义画等号，因此不仅让乌托邦的到场变得可疑，而且社会主义的合法性也遭到侵蚀。作为一种反驳方式，一批西方马克思主义者并未廓清社会主义与乌托邦之间的界限，而是试图赋予乌托邦概念以合法性，本末倒置地开始了他们自以为是的“社会主义救赎”。

Traditional utopian theory clung to concrete and elaborate political designs, planning many ridiculous “social blueprints” in the name of the common good of the community. The uniform clothing of the “Utopians,” the magnificent urban planning of the City of the Sun, the twelve exquisite dishes on the dining table of the Phalanx—from the Phalanstère to Little Icaria, these “fantasies beyond class struggle” all remind Western Marxists that utopia was originally a “nowhere.” They recognized these problems, but solved them in a self-deceptive way: since traditional utopia is illusory, then reconstruct a new utopia to replace it.

传统的乌托邦理论执着于具体而精巧的政治设计，以共同体的善的名义规划了许多滑稽的“社会蓝图”。“乌托邦人”整齐划一的服装、太阳城华丽的城市规划、法郎吉餐桌上十二道精美的菜肴，从法伦斯泰尔到小伊加利亚，这些“超乎阶级斗争的幻想”都在提醒西方马克思主义者，乌托邦原本就是“乌有之乡”。他们意识到了这些问题，却以自欺欺人的方式解决——既然传统的乌托邦是虚幻的，那就重构一种新的乌托邦取而代之。

Bloch, Marcuse, Fredric Jameson, and others all strove to establish a connection between Marxism and the illusory “utopian spirit.” For true Marxists, the positive significance of utopia lies only in its being a valuable material that once enlightened the consciousness of the workers. In other words, utopia is legitimate only in the sense of prehistory; but for Western Marxists, utopia became a “universal panacea.” On the theoretical level, they ignore the illusory nature of utopia, recognizing only its ideality, and the concept of utopia becomes the value yardstick for evaluating everything. On the practical level, these new “utopians” attempt to change the alienated state of human existence in post-capitalist society solely through awakening the utopian spirit and radical cultural critique.

布洛赫、马尔库塞、詹姆逊等人都竭力想要在马克思主义和虚幻的“乌托邦精神”之间建立起联系。对于真正的马克思主义者来说，乌托邦的积极意义仅仅在于它是曾经启发了工人觉悟的宝贵材料。换言之，只有在史前史的意义上乌托邦才是合法的；但对于西方马克思主义者来说，乌托邦变成了“万能的灵药”。在理论层面上，他们无视乌托邦的虚幻性，只承认其理想性，乌托邦之概念成为评价一切的价值尺度。在现实层面上，这些新“乌托邦主义者”试图单纯通过对乌托邦精神的唤醒和激进的文化批判去改变后资本主义社会异化的人类生存状态。

Three Basic Modes of Utopian Reconstruction

乌托邦重构的三种基本方式

Broadly speaking, Western Marxists reconstruct the concept of utopia in three ways.

大体来说，西方马克思主义者以三种方式对乌托邦概念进行重构。

The first mode is a speculative “ontological” reconstruction, accomplished through a phenomenological reduction of utopia and the utopian spirit. In Bloch’s view, human action arises from being driven by impulses; “hunger” is the most basic human impulse, so people always “expect” something to eliminate “hunger”; when the object of “expectation” is something that does “not yet” exist in reality, this “expectation” is “hope.” Bloch argues that this “consciousness of hope” directed toward the “not-yet-existent” is the core of the utopian spirit. As an instinctual structure generating human action, all progressive and revolutionary thoughts and actions that have appeared in history are “utopian.” But when Bloch asserts that “impulse” exists ontologically prior to “the body,” he has already laid the “root” of dualistic idealism. The utopian spirit may lurk in past history as a spiritual upsurge, but what truly drives the development of social history can only be real material forces.

第一种方式是思辨性的“本体论”重构，通过对乌托邦与乌托邦精神的现象学还原来完成。在布洛赫看来，人之所以产生行动，乃是由于受到冲动的驱使；“饥饿”是人最为基本的冲动，因此人总是“期待”某物来消除“饥饿”；当“期待”的事物是现实中“尚未”存在之物，这种“期待”就是“希望”。布洛赫认为这种指向“尚未存在”的“希望意识”乃是乌托邦精神的核心，作为一种产生人类行动的本能结构，历史上出现的一切进步的、革命的思想与行动都是“乌托邦的”。但是当布洛赫断言“冲动”先于“肉体”以本体论的方式存在时，就已经埋下了二元论的唯心主义“祸根”。乌托邦精神或许以一种精神涌流的方式潜藏于过往的历史之中，但真正推动社会历史发展的，只能是现实的物质力量。

The second mode is a spiritual “aesthetic” reconstruction, accomplished by constructing a critical aesthetic utopia. Marcuse argues that the disease of Western society lies in the “surplus repression” brought about by the capitalist system: technologically, an external coercive power is created that in turn enslaves and oppresses people; in consumption, false needs are manufactured to stimulate people’s desires. The essence is that surplus repression limits the scope of activity of “Eros,” so human liberation is the liberation of “Eros.” On the question of how to achieve the liberation of “Eros,” Marcuse brings out “utopia” as a “magic weapon,” proposing a theory of instinctual revolution centered on the reconstruction of an aesthetic utopia. On the one hand, the aesthetic utopia is spiritual, manifested in overthrowing mechanical, stereotyped, reproducible modes of artistic creation and restoring the uniqueness and “aura” of art. On the other hand, it is also taken as a program and principle for political action, such as the proletarian revolution being replaced by “instinctual revolution” and “cultural revolution.” As a result, this aesthetic utopia cannot change reality, because mere aesthetic redemption as a spiritual force lacks a fundamental effect on changes in material life; the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure is inverted. At the same time, it cannot achieve genuine critique and transcendence, because the homogenized social reality of post-capitalist society leaves no space for a transcendence that can be expected.

第二种方式是精神性的“审美”式重构，通过营建批判性的审美乌托邦来完成。马尔库塞认为，西方的社会之症在于资本主义制度所带来的“额外压抑”，技术上创造出一种外在的强权反过来奴役和压迫人；消费上制造虚假的需要刺激人的欲望；其实质是额外压抑限制了“爱欲”的活动范围，因此人的解放就是“爱欲”的解放。在如何实现“爱欲”解放的问题上，马尔库塞搬出了“乌托邦”作为“法宝”，提出了以审美乌托邦重建为核心的本能革命理论。一方面，审美乌托邦是精神性的，表现为推翻机械刻板的、可复制的艺术创作模式，恢复艺术的独特性与“灵韵”。另一方面，它又被作为政治行动的纲领和原则，如无产阶级革命被“本能革命”“文化革命”所取代。结果这种审美乌托邦无法改变现实，因为单纯的审美救赎作为一种精神力量对物质生活的改变缺乏根本性，经济基础与上层建筑的关系被颠倒了。同时，它也不能实现真正的批判和超越，因为后资本主义社会中同质化的社会现实不能给可期待的超越预留空间。

The third mode is a conceptual “transformative” reconstruction, accomplished by playing games with concepts. Russell Jacoby argues that “blueprint utopianism” has exhausted its strength, but “iconoclastic utopianism” should be revived. The targets of liberal critique are all the various historical traditions of “blueprint” utopianism. Within the Jewish tradition of iconoclasm, another special utopian paradigm is nurtured. It does not depict concrete social blueprints, rejects language, rejects images, and describes the ideal life in a negative manner. However, this kind of utopia that insists solely on negation, avoiding any positive political program, in fact also leads people into political apathy and incapacity. This utopian theory, lacking constructive significance, is even more detached from the “foundation of the real life-world” than traditional utopia.

第三种方式是概念性的“转换”式重构，通过玩弄概念的游戏来完成。拉塞尔·雅各比认为“蓝图派的乌托邦主义”已经耗尽了力量，但是“反偶像崇拜的乌托邦主义”却应当被复兴。自由主义批判所指向的对象都是历史上形形色色的“蓝图派”乌托邦传统。在犹太教反偶像崇拜的传统中孕育着另一种特殊的乌托邦范式，它不描绘具体的社会蓝图，拒斥语言、拒斥图像，以否定性的方式来描述理想的生活。然而这种一味坚持否定的乌托邦，回避任何积极的政治纲领，事实上同样使人陷入政治冷漠和无能之中，这种缺乏建构意义的乌托邦理论也比传统的乌托邦更加脱离“现实生活世界的根基”。

Critique and Reflection on the Utopian Reconstruction

乌托邦重构的批判与反思

No matter how Western Marxists reconstruct utopia, their basic stance is “utopian,” that is, illusory and fanatical. The liberal view holds that if history is predictable, then history has already drawn its endpoint in the capitalist era; if history is unpredictable, then all social ideals are at best a “myth” or legend. But the problem with this argument is that the “earthly paradise” promised by the post-capitalist era is itself a real fantasy; the actual trajectory of social history has already shown that history is far from over. The regularity of the development of human social history has also been proven by objective facts. Therefore, refuting the liberal indictment does not require a path leading to utopia. The reconstruction of utopia is only worthy of affirmation on the premise of a conscious awareness of the “illusory nature” inherent in utopia. Otherwise, the so-called reconstruction of utopia is a distortion of the laws of social development, severing the fundamental connection between social ideals and social reality, and exaggerating the significance of “utopia” as a social ideology.

西方马克思主义者不论以何种方式对乌托邦进行重构，其基本立场都是“乌托邦式”的，即虚幻且狂热的。自由主义的观点认为，如果历史是可预测的，那么历史已经在资本主义的时代画上了句点；如果历史是不可预测的，那么一切社会理想充其量不过是一种“迷思”或神话。但这种主张的问题在于，后资本主义时代所允诺的“地上天国”才是真正的幻想，现实的社会历史轨迹已经表明历史远没有终结；人类社会历史发展的规律性也已被客观的事实所证明。因此，反驳自由主义的控诉并不需要一条通往乌托邦的道路，乌托邦的重构只有在自觉意识到乌托邦所具有的“虚幻性”的前提下才值得肯定。否则，所谓乌托邦的重构就是对社会发展规律的曲解，割裂了社会理想与社会现实之间的根本联系，夸大作为一种社会意识形态的“乌托邦”的意义。

The utopian reconstruction of Western Marxism was a response to the critique of 20th-century Western socialism, but no matter which form of reconstruction was adopted, it could not possibly succeed. They still treated utopia as an independent entity possessing its own “spiritual, moral, and free foundations,” a hollow goal detached from the actual process of historical development. Therefore, compared with the “classical utopian tradition,” the utopian reconstruction of Western Marxism, while breaking through the limitations of political design, also fell into a deeper “dilemma of accessibility.” As Engels pointed out, traditional utopian theory lacks an understanding of means, and hence it is utopian. [1]1 Engels’s critique of utopian socialism appears in *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific* (1880), where he argues that utopian socialists, lacking a materialist conception of history and an understanding of the class struggle, could not identify the means for social transformation, rendering their systems “utopian” in the pejorative sense. In contrast, the utopia of Western Marxists is even less accessible. The utopia revived in the realms of art, aesthetics, architecture, religion, and so forth either exists in the form of a feeble utopian spirit within all new things in reality, without any need to consider its realization, or exhausts its last strength in an empty ideal pointing toward the future.

西方马克思主义的乌托邦重构是针对20世纪西方社会主义批判的回应，但无论哪种重构方式，都不可能取得成功。他们依然将乌托邦当作一种具有自己“精神的、道德的、自由的基础”的独立存在物，脱离了现实历史发展进程所设定的空洞目标。因此，相较于“古典乌托邦传统”，西方马克思主义的乌托邦重构在破除了政治设计局限性的同时，也陷入了更深的“通达困境”中。正如恩格斯所指出的，传统的乌托邦理论缺乏对手段的认识，因而它是空想的。与之相比，西方马克思主义者的乌托邦更加没有通达的可能。在艺术、审美、建筑、宗教等领域复活的乌托邦，要么以疲弱的乌托邦精神的方式存在于一切现实的新事物之中而无须考虑实现问题，要么在指向未来的空洞理想中耗尽自己最后的力量。

These “new utopians” recognized that the 20th-century critique of socialism was absurd, and that the attacks from liberalism were untenable both in theory and in fact. Yet these theorists chose a “path of defense” that put the cart before the horse, replacing the genuine proposition of the legitimacy of socialism with the false proposition of the legitimacy of utopia. As a beautiful but impractical dream, utopia can only be an interesting yet marginal cultural offshoot. These “new utopians” are essentially well-intentioned dreamers, even though their dreams no longer contain concrete images but are filled with bubbles and hazy illusions.

这些“新乌托邦主义者”意识到了20世纪针对社会主义的批判是荒谬的，来自自由主义的攻击无论在理论还是事实上都经不起推敲。但这些理论家却选择了一条本末倒置的“捍卫之路”，以乌托邦的合法性的伪命题取代了社会主义的合法性的真命题。乌托邦作为美好但不切实际的梦，只能是一种有趣然而小众的文化分支。这些“新乌托邦主义者”本质上只是用意良善的梦想家，尽管他们的梦里不再出现具体的景象，而是被泡沫和朦胧的幻象充塞。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗